Professional Documents
Culture Documents
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2674417?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture is collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to The William and Mary Quarterly
4~~~.3.( 94 ~ *"wo 9
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I
I ft.
Ih
e a a a a a a a a a a a a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
)L don EUROPE
FRANCE
*Nantes
*Bordeaux
AFRICA
Axim4~'~ Bonny
OdCalahar
o erado Po
Princip6
*Luanda
0 ('E Nzrv>
.I1..f\ I1 K.. I- I- - ll
~~~~~~~UA Usd
[ \~SPANISH LSE
PUERTO
RICO
M~~~t 0 )
Km. 0 ) s W 1,w \
A TLANTIC
OCEAN
PUERTO
RICO
1MINGUE
LESSER
ANTILLES ,
'URAQ 7 BARBADOS
of thetansatanticslavetrad s on ltIstAD
of the transatlanti slave trade, basedon li ta. d
IRI \i II
?2 (rcnt . 1.,.,~,
DI i0t I C K1141i %N @
Map IV: The Lesser Antilles in the Eighteenth Century, based on Eltis et al.,
eds., Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database. Map drawn by Rebecca Wrenn.
: ~~~~J A M A I C A
Km. /lot)(d
David Eltis
William and Mary Quarterly, 3d Series, Volume LVIII, Number i, January 200i
through the slave trade era, aggregated shipping data, and population pro-
jections of recipient regions in the Americas, and Paul Lovejoy consolidated
the conclusions of scholars who had recovered more new data from the
archives after Curtin published his findings; the present reassessment, by
contrast, is based on individual voyages for the busiest parts of the trade,
nearly half of which have only recently become known.3 For the most part,
this work uses voyage-by-voyage shipping data rather than the estimates of
then-contemporaries and historians derived from those data. As information
becomes available and as assumptions underlying the estimates are refined,
the conclusions offered here will change. Moreover, the new estimates have
yet to be tested systematically against the known demographic data, a
process that also leads to some revision.4
The CD-ROM does not, and its successors never will, record every voy-
age that set out to obtain slaves. That it contains a majority of those voyages
is certain, for three reasons. First, internal checks are possible for some
branches of the trade, which suggests fairly complete coverage. Thus French
vessels, when they returned to their home port after delivering slaves in the
Americas, typically included references to other French vessels met with on
the voyage. More than 95 percent of French ships cited in this way were
already in the dataset.5 Second, in the last stages of preparation of the British
data, after incorporation of all other major sources, Lloyd's Lists, perhaps the
most comprehensive and independent single source for eighteenth-century
British ship movements, was combed. For the years for which copies of
Lloyd's Lists survive, data on 8,ooo British slaving voyages exist. This ship-
ping gazette provided a rich haul of additional material on voyages already
known, but added only 35o new voyages to the set. Reassuringly, more of
this increment sailed from London, for which sources are weaker, than from
other British ports.6 Gaps exist in all sources, but for both the French and
British slave trades there are no years or ports for which no coverage exists.7
3 Philip D. Curtin, The Atlantic Slave Trade: A Census (Madison, i969); Joseph E. Inikori,
"The Known, the Unknown, the Knowable, and the Unknowable: Evidence and the Evaluation
of Evidence in the Measurement of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade" (paper presented at the
Williamsburg conference on the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, Sept. 1998), s-3; Paul E.
Lovejoy, "The Volume of the Atlantic Slave Trade: A Synthesis," Journal of African History, 33
(1982), 473-501, and "The Impact of the Atlantic Slave Trade on Africa: A Review of the
Literature," ibid., 30 (1989) 365-94; Per 0. Hernaes, Slaves, Danes, and the African Coast S
The Danish Slave Trade from West Africa and Afro-Danish Relations on the Eighteenth-Century
Gold Coast (Trondheim, Nor., I995) 140-71.
4 To encourage debate and make it transparent, the spreadsheets underlying this article are
posted on the Omohundro Institute/ William and Mary Quarterly website <http://www.wm.
edu/oieahc> where readers can view the derivation of the estimates and indeed try new assump-
tions (and data) of their own. See also the 7 tables at the website.
5 Jean Mettas, Repertoire des Expeditions Negrieres Franfaises au XVIIIe Siecle, 2 vols. (Paris,
1978-1984).
6 For a full explanation see the Introduction to Eltis et al., eds., Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade
Database.
7 Thus, Inspector General Thomas Irving's comments that the naval offices in the various
British West Indian islands failed to send in all quarterly returns (cited in Inikori, "The Known,
the Unknown, the Unknowable," 12-13) is not significant given the numerous alternative
sources for the British trade between i672 and i807. Sixteen separate sources are listed for some
This article takes four cumulative steps in drawing the broad out-
lines of the trade. First, it generates estimates of national participation.
Second, it distributes these national groupings across African regions on
the basis of large samples of known regions of slave purchases. These
distributions are then summed to derive quarter-century totals for each
African region. Third, it performs a similar exercise for regions of dis-
embarkation in the Americas. Fourth, it outlines the African origins of
slaves disembarking in a few American regions. Space constraints dictate
that only a few of the American regions can be treated in this way, pro-
viding merely a taste of what the dataset is able to do in constructing
transatlantic links.9
Table I provides estimates of national participation in the trade as
expressed in the numbers of slaves carried from Africa under each
national flag. The national affiliations of 23,302 (86 percent) voyages are
known. For a further 2,465, the context of the voyage and the name of
British voyages, and even in the s7th century, sources per voyage reached double figures
and derive from Africa and Europe as well as the Americas.
8 To convert shipping data into estimates of slaves carried, two adjustments are
required. For a minority of voyages, no information is available on the outcome. In such
cases, the vessel left its home port intending to obtain slaves but cannot be traced further.
In other cases, the vessel is known to have reached Africa and even obtained slaves, but no
further information is available. Such vessels, composing about io% of voyages in the
dataset, are assumed to have delivered slaves to the Americas, and this decision almost cer-
tainly imparts some upward bias to estimates of the volume of the trade presented here. A
second adjustment is necessary because only 72% of the vessels that took slaves on board
left a record of the number of slaves either embarked or disembarked. For such vessels an
imputed number of slaves is added by averaging numbers that are known by regions of
embarkation and disembarkation. Full information on these procedures is provided in the
SPSS programs contained in Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, though these have been
modified slightly since publication.
9 Note that the numbers in this article do not always accord with those in the dataset
on account of additions and corrections made since the dataset appeared. Brazilian-
registered vessels, owned overwhelmingly by Portuguese citizens, are grouped with those
sailing under the Portuguese flag. Generally, it is not always easy to tell the difference
between English colonial vessels and English vessels and, later, between U.S. and British
vessels where no explicit identification is available. All such pre-i808 voyages of unknown
flag are taken to have been British colonial if sailing before 1776 and U. S. if sailing after
1775 (effectively after 1782, given the impact of war on North America shippers).
the ship, its owner, or its captain make possible inferences about place of
registration. Some vessels, responding to nineteenth-century attempts to
suppress the traffic, especially after 1844, would sail without registration
papers or would switch flags during a slaving voyage. Other vessels, regis-
tered in one country but belonging to nationals of another, would carry out
the whole voyage under false papers, although overall this is not a large
group (probably less than I percent). These are assigned to the Portuguese
flag.10 After all adjustments, the British (including British colonials) and the
Portuguese account for seven of ten transatlantic slaving voyages and carried
nearly three quarters of all slaves who embarked in Africa. Broadly, the
Portuguese dominated before i640 and after 1807, with the British displacing
them in the intervening period. The French, Dutch, Spanish, Danish, and
United States slave traders appear as bit players by comparison, though at
particular times some of these national groups did assume importance. Each
national trade is taken up briefly in turn.
The British trade is, after the French, the most thoroughly researched of
all national branches of the traffic. For the years before 1713, after 1779, and
for Bristol, Whitehaven, and all minor ports in Lancashire and Cheshire
throughout the slave trade era, published estimates already exist that are
broadly consistent with the dataset."I For the years 1714 to 1779, a new count
for London, Liverpool and ports in the West Country, and Scotland is made
directly from the set. For London and the British outports, the proportion of
slaving voyages included in the set is at least 90 percent.'2 Almost no slavers
leaving Liverpool in the eighteenth century escaped notice, as indicated by
the extraordinary richness of the sources for the port, which include planta-
tion shipping registers, Admiralty passes, Colonial Treasurers' accounts, port
books, and newspapers.'3 Overall, the dataset probably contains some record
10 Thus, examining only the registration or flag at the outset of the voyage may yield a
misleading picture of national participation in the i9th-centuLry trade.
II Behrendt, "The Annual Volume and Regional Distribution of the British Slave Trade,
I780-1807," J. African Hist., 38 (1997), 187-211; Richardson, Bristol, Africa and the Eighteen
Century Slave Trade to America, vol. I: The Years of Expansion, r698-1729 (Gloucester, i986); vol.
z: The Years of Ascendancy, 173o0-1745 (GlouLcester, 1987); vol. 3: The Years of Decline, 1746-1769
(Gloucester, 1991); vol. 4: The Final Years, I770-I807 (Gloucester, 1997); Richardson and
Maurice M. Schofield, "Whitehaven and the Eighteenth Century British Slave Trade,"
Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 92
(1992), 183-204; Schofield, "The Slave Trade from Lancashire and Cheshire Ports Outside
Liverpool, c. 1750-c. I790," in Roger Anstey and P.E.H. Hair, eds., Liverpool, the African Slave
Trade, and Abolition: Essays to Illustrate Current Knowledge and Research, enlarged edition
(Liverpool, i989), 239-81; Eltis, "The British Transatlantic Slave Trade Before 1714: Annual
Estimates of Volume and Direction," in Robert L. Paquette and Engerman, eds., The Lesser
Antilles in the Age of European Expansion (Gainesville, Fla., i996), and "The Volume and African
Origins of the Seventeenth-Century English Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade: A Comparative
Assessment," Cahiers dEtudesdAfricaines, 138 (1995), 617-27.
12 Some 234,000 slaves were carried on vessels coming from unknown British ports. Most
of these sailed from Bristol, London, or Liverpool. Although the dataset includes almost all
ships leaving these ports, the particular port of departure is not always identified in the set.
13 Richardson, Katherine Beedham, and Schofield, Liveipool Shipping and Trade, 1744-1786
(ESRC Archives, University of Essex, i992). See the sources in Eltis et al., eds., Trans-Atlantic
Slave Trade Database, for other references.
of 95 percent of the voyages that sailed from Britain between 1714 and 1779.
To allow for missing records, slave departures on Liverpool ships between
1714 and 1779 are divided by o.99 (thus assuming a i percent omission) and
those on London and outport vessels by o.9 (thus assuming a io percent
omission). Integration of the new and previously published estimates yields
the series for the British trade in column i of Table 1.14
Records for some other national groupings of slave traders are as or even
more complete. For the French trade, dividing the number of slaves moved
on French ships in the dataset by 0.95, at least after 1707, will compensate
for missing data. The results appear in column 2 of Table I. Before 1707,
records are much less complete, but the French slave trade also operated far
below its eighteenth-century peak in these years.15 The post-i675 Dutch traf-
fic has been catalogued and analyzed by Johannes Postma, who believes that
some record of almost every Dutch slave vessel has survived.'6 Lloyd' Lists
contains records of only six Dutch slave voyages not in his set, and most of
these vessels were captured or shipwrecked before completing their voyages.
Before i675, it is possible to make a partial reconstruction of Dutch slaving
activity, which got underway with the Dutch occupation of northeastern
Brazil in the i630s.17 Column 3 of Table I shows the results. The small
Danish trade is well documented. Per Hernaes estimates 97,850 slaves leavin
Africa but includes 8,700 leaving Christiansborg on non-Danish ships,
almost all of which are likely counted under the flags of other nations. The
14 For the detailed derivation of this series, see Eltis, Behrendt, and Richardson, "The
Transatlantic Slave Trade: A New Census" (Cambridge, forthcoming). Some British-owned ves-
sels sailed from French ports tinder the French flag prior to the outbreak of war in 1793 without
first leaving a trace in the British records. Similar activity is likely in the very small Dutch and
the even smaller Spanish trades late in the i8th century. The records of the host country nor-
mally list such vessels as domestically owned. Allowances for such vessels would increase slightly
the overall estimate of all these trades. The estimates in Table I already allow for missing vessels,
and no further adjustment appears called for.
15 A few French slave vessels not in Mettas-Daget show up in Lloyd's Lists. In most cases
such ships were captured or wrecked before reaching the Americas. In other words, their move-
ments were less likely to be recorded in French sources than vessels that completed their voy-
ages. For the French slave trade during the Peace of Amiens see Eric Saugera, "Pour une histoire
de la traite francaise sous le Consulat et l'Empire," Revue Franfaise d'histoire d'Outre-Mer, 76
(1989), 203-29. For discussion of the adjustments to the pre-1707 data see Eltis, Behrendt, and
Richardson, "Transatlantic Slave Trade: A New Census."
16 Johannes Menne Postma, The Dutch in the Atlantic Slave Trade, i600-i815 (Cambridge,
1990), 110, ii8, 304-411.
17 For the unpublished work of Franz Binder, on which these estimates of the early
are based see Postma, Dutch in the Atlantic Slave Trade, 31-35. From i634 to i648, the Dutch
occupied Pernambuco, the largest Brazilian sugar-growing area, and from i630 to i654 they held
other Brazilian ports. From i630 to i65i, Dutch ships carried 26,i26 slaves into what had been
Pernambuco and surrounding territory; Ernst Van den Boogaart and Pieter Emmer, "The Dutch
Participation in the Atlantic Slave Trade, 1596-i650," in Henry Gemery and Jan S. Hogendorn,
eds., The Uncommon Market: Essays in the Economic Histoly of the Atlantic Slave Trade (New
York, 1979), 369. This series replaces the one in H. Watjen, Das Hollandische Kolonialreich in
Brasilien: ein Kapital aus der Kolonial Geschicte des I7. Jahrhunderts (Berlin, 1921), 487, widely
cited in the older literature. For further adjustments to these estimates see Eltis, Behrendt, and
Richardson, "Transatlantic Slave Trade: A New Census."
18 Svend Holsoe and Hernaes, working independently of each other, have collected what
they consider to be close to comprehensive data on this branch of the traffic. Encouragingly,
their estimates are similar. See Hernaes, Slaves, Danes, and the African Coast Society, 170-233;
Holsoe to author, Copenhagen, January i998. Voyage mortality appears to have been relatively
high on Danish vessels at i6.4% (N = 86, Standard Deviation [SD] = 13.9), and this implies
arrivals numbering 74,600. Eltis et al., eds., Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, by contrast,
has details of 6i,397 slaves leaving Africa and 51,28i arriving in the Americas. The distribution of
the Hernaes/Holsoe aggregates by quarter century is based on the distribution in these data.
19 Adam Jones, Brandenburg Sources for West African History, 1680-1700 (Stuttgart, 1985),
i-II. There are records of i6 ventures under these flags, mainly during the era when the electors
of Brandenburg controlled Gross-Friedrichsburg just west of Cape Three Points on the Gold
Coast between i683 and 1721; the fort was virtually moribund for the first two decades of the
i8th century before the Dutch took it over.
20 Mortality on non-Danish vessels sailing before i8oo is taken at 20%.
21 Information on some vessels assumed to have left North American ports is imputed
from the name of the captain or data on previous voyages.
22 Most of these appear in Jay Coughtry, The Notorious Triangle: Rhode Island and the
African Slave Trade, 1700-1807 (Philadelphia, 1981), 241-85, drawn overwhelmingly from Rhode
Island sources such as newspapers and local official records.
23 The T70 series, vols. 1463, 1472, 1476, 1484, 1498, 1515, 1517-19, 1522-32, 1534-38,
1544-59, 1561-74, in the British Public Record Office, contains the Cape Coast Castle reports of
vessel movements, and the C028 series contains the colonial treasurers' accounts.
slaving voyages are estimated to have sailed after 1730, and an additional 50
for the years 1714 to 1730, when the dataset actually contains more slave ships
sailing from the Caribbean than from mainland colonies. Except for
European-based vessels returning directly to Africa for more slaves, these ves-
sels were generally quite small. Overall, 550 Caribbean-based voyages are
estimated for 1714-1807, carrying 59,400 slaves from Africa (and disembark-
ing 51,300).24 Thus, vessels from ports in the British Americas carried off
280,000 slaves after 1713 (see Table I, column 5). For the non-English and
non-Portuguese Americas, transatlantic slave ship departures were very few,
and the historians of the French, Dutch, and Danish slave trades have likely
caught all such voyages in their archival nets.
The Portuguese and Spanish trades, unlike the British and Dutch,
focused on a narrow range of areas in the Americas. The winds and currents
of the South Atlantic ensured that the slave trade to Brazil was the preserve
of traders based in the major Brazilian ports mainly Portuguese, even after
Brazilian independence. Spanish slavers traded only to the Spanish Americas,
mainly Cuba, and accounted for a small proportion of pre-i8io transatlantic
arrivals.25 Very few Spanish vessels appear to have been active before 1790,
and the dataset shows i6,ooo slaves in total leaving in Spanish vessels, all to
Cuba. To allow for missing records, this figure is increased by half, and total
departures of 24,000 (20,800 arrivals) are thus projected for 1700-i8io.26
The Spanish traffic, mostly Cuban-based, expanded rapidly from these mod-
est levels after i807 (see Table I, column 4).
Although the Portuguese trade is the most underrepresented in the
dataset, it nevertheless constitutes a quarter of it, and if the estimates of the
Luso traffic below are correct, then more than half of all Portuguese slaving
voyages are included. All transatlantic vessels, except for the very few identi-
fied under other flags, are assumed to have been Portuguese until i640. For
the very earliest period before i6oo Curtin's estimate of 50,000 arrivals
24 Applying the same loss ratios as those estimated for Rhode Island ships means that 550
voyages obtained slaves in Africa, and 533 of these voyages reached the Americas. The derivation
of the estimates of total slaves carried is in Eltis, Behrendt, and Richardson, "Transatlantic Slave
Trade: A New Census."
25 From the first two centuries of the trade, the Spanish chose to issue licenses or asientos
that allowed mostly non-Spaniards to bring slaves to their territory rather than to carry slaves
themselves. The licenses often changed hands several times before coming into the possession of
the actual shippers of slaves. In the early days the asientistas could be Spanish, Genoese, or
Portuguese, but by the late i6th century were normally Portuguese. As it is difficult to separate
out these different groups, all non-Spanish transatlantic shippers to the Spanish Americas before
I700 are labeled Portuguese here. Given the small scale of the early trade, the upward bias this
imparts to the Portuguese trade is minor. In the second half of the i8th century, occasional
Spanish slaving voyages occurred. Under the I778 Treaty of Pardo, Spain acquired the island of
Annob6n in the Bight of Biafra from Portugal for the express purpose of establishing a slaving
base (see the memo dated Feb. 26, I840, F084/383, fol. 262, PRO, and the documents in
F084/299, fols. I9-25, PRO, apparently removed from the Spanish archives, for a summary of
this activity). As these efforts were not successful, a substantial transatlantic Spanish traffic did
not develop until the British and Americans pulled out of the trade in i807.
26 A small sample of shipboard mortality on Spanish vessels before i8ii suggests I3.7% of
those taken board failed to reach the Americas (N = ii, SD = i6.6).
in Brazil still holds. For the Spanish Americas, a major adjustment to his
estimate of 75,000 arrivals for the same period is required. Bullion exports to
Spain expanded rapidly at the end of the sixteenth century and peaked
shortly after i6oo. The best recent estimate of slave arrivals in Spanish
America between 1595 and i640 is 268,200, and no fewer than 30 percent of
these arrived in the six years, 1595-i600.27 This end-of-century bulge, which
brought 80,5oo Africans to Spanish America easily the largest annual aver-
age to any major national jurisdiction in the Americas before the explosive
growth of the British sugar sector is the basis of doubling Curtin's estimate
for the Spanish Americas from 75 to 150 thousand. This implies a total of
200,000 arrivals in the Americas in the sixteenth century. Average voyage
mortality for 1595-i640 for sixty-six Portuguese vessels was 25.6 percent (20
percent estimated for the shorter route to Brazil) and supports an estimate of
departures from Africa of 264,i00 between 15I1 and i6oo.
For the seventeenth century, the trade to Spanish America switched
from Portuguese to Dutch and English control in midcentury, and thereafter
the Portuguese slave trade is virtually synonymous with the traffic to Brazil,
except for a short renewal of the asiento between i696 and 1701, this time on
the part of the Portuguese Cacheu Company.28 From i6oi to i640, arrivals
on Portuguese vessels in the Spanish Americas totaled i87,700 (the survivors
of 252,000 departures). For Brazil, older estimates posited 200,000 arrivals
in Brazil between i6oo and i65o or 173,700 after deducting those coming
on Dutch ships and 325,000 between i65o and 1700.29 Analogies with bet-
ter documented branches of the slave traffic suggest that both earlier esti-
mates are too high. The major buyers of African slaves in Brazil before 1700
were sugar planters. The expansion of their sugar sector in the second half of
the sixteenth century was probably similar to that of its later English coun-
terpart. Both sectors changed their supply of labor to predominantly African
27 All data in the set, as well as the estimate are from Enriqueta Vila Vilar, Hispanoamerica y
el comercio de esclavos (Seville, I977). Eltis et al., eds., Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, has
83,200 arrivals-29,800 in I595-i600.
28 Under the new contract, perhaps 5,000 slaves entered Spanish America. See Georges
Scelle, "The Slave-Trade in the Spanish Colonies of America: The Asiento," American Journal of
International Law, 4 (igio), 6i2-6i. For the difficulty of obtaining slaves from sources other
than the British and the Dutch after i66o see Leslie B. Rout Jr., The African Experience in
Spanish America, I502 to the Present Day (Cambridge, I976), 44-48.
29 Frederic Mauro's 35-year-old review of the evidence is still basic, though the shipping
and demographic roots of his discussion are not robust. He estimated io8,ooo arrivals in
Pernambuco between i6oo and i652-75,000 before i630-all iln Portuguese vessels. His esti-
mate post-i630 is roughly consistent with the Dutch data. Allowing for Bahia and Rio de
Janeiro-the only other significant ports of entry-he estimated 200,000 slave arrivals from
i6oo to i65o. After i65o, Mauro fell back on Goulart's aggregate estimate of 20,000 slaves pe
year arriving in the Americas, of whom he thought 6,000-7,000 could have disembarked inl
Brazil. This implies an estimate of 325,000 arrivals between i65o and I700. See Mauro,
Portugal et L'Atlantique au XVIIe Sikcle (Paris, i960), I74-8I, and Mauricio Goulart, Escrivaddo
Africana no Brasil (das origens a extincdo do trafico) (Sdo Paulo, I950), ii6. Stuart Schwartz, Sugar
Plantations in the Formation of Brazilian Society (Cambridge, I985), 342, accepts Goulart's figure
of 2,000 per annum for Bahia alone, which is broadly consistent with Mauro's discussion.
slaves, the first from indigenous and the second from a European indentured
servant regime. The growth of the English plantation system was likely more
explosive and its focus on African labor at the end of the transition greater.
At some point around i675, exports of sugar from the English Caribbean sur-
passed the volume of Brazilian sugar exports just prior to the i624 Dutch
attack. One hundred thousand slave arrivals in Brazil between i6oo and i625
(half the 200,000 currently projected for i6oi-i650) compares well with the
better documented 140,000 who arrived in the British Caribbean between
i640 and i675, even after allowing for the Indian labor that Brazilian planters
used. After i625, stagnation in the Bahian sugar sector suggests that i00,000
slave arrivals in the second quarter of the seventeenth century are unlikely,
even including arrivals on Dutch vessels. Pernambuco had accounted for well
over half of Brazilian sugar output before occupation by the Dutch. Total
arrivals in Portuguese vessels in the second quarter of the seventeenth cen-
tury should probably be halved to 50,000 Thus, 150,000 is allowed for the
Portuguese traffic to Brazil, i6oo-i650 (making i87,500 departures, on the
basis of an estimate of 20 percent mortality on the shorter South Atlantic
route). The addition of 252,000 departures for the Spanish Americas and
i87,500 for Brazil yields 439,500, the total number of slaves carried to the
Americas in Portuguese vessels, i6oi-i650.
For i650 to 1700, the estimate of 325,000 arrivals in Brazil derived from
Frederic Mauro and Mauricio Goulart also seems in need of downward revi-
sion.30 The English sugar sector absorbed 177,000 enslaved Africans, yet
Barbados and the English Leewards together likely yielded more plantation
produce than the whole of Brazil in 1700.31 At the end of one hundred years
of slave arrivals and a plantation economy that grew slowly between i65o and
1700, why would Brazil have taken in more slaves than the English
Caribbean? It is possible that slaves were used more extensively in nonexport
sectors in Brazil than in the Caribbean, but African slaves were purchased,
30 More recent estimates imply an even larger volume-nearly half a million slaves enter-
ing Brazil on Portuguese ships in this half century. Patrick Manning (using Pierre Verger's data
on tobacco ships for West Africa) has suggested 2,300 slaves a year from the Slave Coast to
Brazil; "The Slave Trade in the Bight of Benin, i640-I890," in Gemery and Hogendorn, eds.,
Uncommon Market, I07-4I. Joseph C. Miller estimates total slave departures from West Central
Africa at ii,8oo per year in "The Number, Origins, and Destinations of Slaves in the Eighteenth-
Century Angolan Slave Trade," in Inikori and Engerman, eds., The Atlantic Slave Trade: Effects on
Economies, Societies, and Peoples in Africa, the Americas, and Europe (Durham, N. C., i992), i09, and
in Way of Death: Merchant Capitalism and the Angolan Slave Trade i730-i830 (Madison, i988),
233. Miller's graph yields approximately iio,ooo for the i66os, I30,000 for the i670s, I25,000 for
the i68os, and I05,000 for the i69os. Deducting known departures in Dutch and English ships
of about 2,300 a year from Angola (Postma, Dutch in the Atlantic Slave Trade, Iio, II2-I3; and
Eltis, "African Origins and Value of the English Slave Trade," table 4) from these West Central
African figures leaves an annual traffic to Brazil of more than ii,000 (Manning, 2,300, and
Miller, 9000+) a year or c. i0,000 arrivals per year for 50 years.
31 Eltis, "British Atlantic Slave Trade," i96-98. The Leewards received slaves from Dutch-
held St. Eustatius that are not included here. More than offsetting this inflow were sales from
Barbados to the Spanish Americas and French Windwards. On sugar output, Barbados and the
English Leewards exported produce worth an estimated ?684,800 in I700. Bahia exported an
estimated ?227,400 and Brazil as a whole an estimated ?568,5oo See Eltis, The Rise of Afric
Slavery in the Americas (New York, 2000), i98-99.
one way or another, with Brazilian exports, and export trends provide some
guide to the potential for obtaining slaves. An estimate for Brazil of 177,000
is accepted for this half century. An allowance of 12.5 percent voyage mortal-
ity yields 202,300 departures from Africa.32 Including the illegal Portuguese
traffic to Spanish America and the activities of the Cacheu Company
(i0,000 arrivals), then the total Portuguese trade for i651-1700 becomes
i87,000 arrivals in the Americas, implying 214,800 departures. Because the
Brazilian sugar sector began to expand once more in the final quarter of the
century, when the Bahia-Bight of Benin slave route began, three quarters of
these departures (i6iIoo) are assigned to i676-1700 and the rest to
i65i-i675.
For the long eighteenth century, the Portuguese slave trade is once more
defined by the slave trade to Brazil, and fortunately, the sources are stronger
here than for the previous century. For Bahia from i678, the CD-ROM
incorporates vessels departing for the African coast with licenses to carry
tobacco (in effect a slave ship departure series) and includes other data
besides. As a result of Luso-Dutch treaties in i64i and i66i, tobacco vessels
were required to leave io percent of their cargo at Elmina before they pro-
ceeded to the Slave Coast, and Dutch records of these tobacco deposits fill
in some of the years for which Bahia tobacco licenses have not survived.33
Indeed, just twelve years between i678 and i8io have no information on
slave ship movements from the port of Bahia. Nine of these years fall
between 1717 and 1725, and the probable reason for the gaps is the loss of
historical records, not the absence of slave trading. Interpolation fills the
gaps.34 Aggregate departures total 656,ooo between 170i and i8io, and, after
allowing for shipboard mortality, arrivals are 598,200.35 For the four quar-
32 Shipboard mortality on vessels sailing the shorter passage between the Slave Coast and
Bahia was below that for the West African-Caribbean route. A proposal to establish a Portuguese
company at Corisco Island, c. I724, intended to displace or reduce Portuguese slave trading on the
Slave Coast stated Io% loss as "etant la computation ordinaire" (quoted in Stowe ms., ST 28, 7,
Huntington Library, San Marino, Calif.). When data for the Bahian trade become available in the
early i9th century, mortality loss was about half that on other routes. Mortality on ships arriving
in Bahia from the Bight of Benin, mainly from I8Io-I814, was 4.6% (N = ioi, SD = 7-5).
33 Verger published a count of Bahian vessels granted licenses to carry tobacco to the
African coast, which is also in effect a count of slave ships, in "Mouvement des navires entre
Bahia et le Golfe du B6nin (XVIIe-XIXe siecle)," Revue Francaise d'Histoire d'Outre-Mer, 55
(i968), io-i2, and Trade Relations between the Bight of Benin and Bahia, I7th to ipth Century,
trans. Evelyn Crawford (Ibadan, I976), 24-26. See Eltis et al., eds., Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade
Database, for additional sources, including Biblioteca Nacional do Rio de Janeiro, Documentos
Histdricos da Biblioteca Nacional do Rio de Janeiro, IIO vols. (Rio de Janeiro, I929-I955), esp.
vols. 6i, 62. These contain data for I7I5 and the first 3 months of I7i6 recorded shortly before
the originals were lost or destroyed.
34 To convert what are for the most part records of possible ship departures into a series of
slaves leaving Africa, two steps are required. The first is to compute a mean for slaves carried on
vessels leaving the Slave Coast with known numbers on board, readily calculated from Eltis et
al., eds., Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database. The second is to make allowance for the years for
which data are missing. For 3 of the i2 missing years, quinquennial averages are assigned, and
for the 9-year block of missing years, the figures are estimated on the basis of a simple linear
interpolation between 5-year averages on either side of the gap.
35 Voyage mortality data for the pre-i8ii years are few, and the rate from Angola to Rio de
Janeiro between I70i and i8io is used instead (8.8i%, N = 326, SD = 7.2).
ters of the eighteenth century, departures for Bahia are estimated at 2i8,300,
114,700, 103,500, and 123,400.
Portuguese traffic to the rest of Brazil drew mainly on Angola. Official
records of ship departures as well as annual summaries of slave departures
exist for most years for the Angolan ports Luanda and Benguela.36 For
Luanda, data are missing for just four years 1715-1717 and 1732 and it is
possible to add interpolations for these as well as to extrapolate backward for
the eight years before 1709 when the summary series begins. Such procedures
yield total departures for 170i-i8i0 of 959,300, or 144,100, 236,500, 217,300,
and 237,200 for the four quarter centuries 170i-i800, required for Table I.
Total arrivals are estimated at 874,800.37 For Benguela, the other major
Portuguese port in Angola, annual totals exist for all but ten years between
1730 and i8io.38 All years that lack data fall in the decade and a half after the
annual series begins, and it is possible that lack of data here simply reflects
lack of slave trading. There is no evidence of slave trading activity before
1730, and until 1745, slave departures averaged just i,000 annually. Some
activity likely did occur, and 5,ooo departures from Benguela are assigned
each of the quinquennia 1726-1730 and 1731-1735. Thus departures from
Benguela are taken as continuous from 1726. They aggregate to 301,900
(275,300 estimated arrivals), I70I-i800.39 Benguelan departures by quarter
century are zero in the first quarter, then 26,600, 99,300, and 176,i00.
How many slaves were smuggled out of these ports and thereby eluded
the officials on whom the above data rely? The dataset offers some check on
smuggling. Between 1796 and i8io it is possible to match two sets of annual
estimates of slaves leaving Luanda and Benguela on Portuguese ships, one
made on the African side of the Atlantic, the other on the Brazilian side.40
Rio de Janeiro records report 8I,200 slaves leaving the two principal African
ports, whereas Angolan records report the departure of 88,700. Given that
Pernambuco and Bahia also drew slaves from Angola at this time about
one-fifth of the vessels arriving in Luanda between 1796 and i8io originated
36 For trading routes see Miller, "Numbers, Destinations, and Origins of Slaves in the
Eighteenth-Century Angolan Slave Trade," 78-89, and Goulart, A Escraviddo, 203-05. For a
review of these summaries, see Jose C. Curto, "A Quantitative Reassessment of the Legal
Portuguese Slave Trade from Luanda, Angola," African Economic History, 20 (i992), I-25, and
"The Legal Portuguese Slave Trade from Benguela: A Quantitative Re-Appraisal," Africa, i6
(I993), ioi-i6.
37 Mean voyage mortality (as a % of those embarked) was 8.8i% between Angola and Rio
between I70i and i8io (N = 326, SD = 7.2).
38 Sources are Klein, "Portuguese Slave Trade," 9i8, for I738-I74I, I744, I747-I800, and
Curto, "Slave Trade from Benguela," for I730, I742, and i8oi-i8io. See also Miller, "Legal
Portuguese Slave Trading from Angola: Some Preliminary Indications of Volume and
Direction," Rev. FranC. d'Hist. d'Outre-Mer, 62 (I975), I35-76, and "Number, Ori
Destinations of Slaves," for I780-I783 and I785-I8Io. For departures from Benguela, this last
article offers a different series from the one printed in the I975 article. I use the later source here.
39 The Rio-Angola voyage mortality rate of 8.8i% is used.
40 The Angolan data are reported by Miller in "Number, Origins, and Destinations of
Slaves," 92, ioo-oi. The Rio data in the set are discussed in Klein, The Middle Passage:
Comparative Studies in the Atlantic Slave Trade (Princeton, I978), 5I-94.
41 See graph 3 in Miller in "Number, Origins, and Destinations of Slaves," I50. The shares
of Brazilian ships arriving in Luanda, I796-i8io, from Rio de Janeiro, Bahia, and Pernambuco
(the only 3 ports included in the graph) do not total one, and I have assumed that Benguela was
inadvertently omitted.
42 Smuggling is never costless. Ports exist because they offer facilities for importing and
exporting goods. Avoiding such facilities is always expensive. If established ports are used for
smuggling, then officials must be bribed. See the discussion in John J. McCusker, Rum and the
American Revolution: The Rum Trade and the Balance of Payments of the Thirteen Continental
Colonies, 2 vols. (New York, I989), I:302-I7, that concludes that scholars generally exaggerate
the problem of smuggling in i8th century Atlantic ports.
43 Lisbon vessels attempted to slave there in the I790S but obtained few slaves and had to
complete their complement in Luanda; Miller, Way of Death, 623. See also the discussion in his
"Number, Origins, and Destinations of Slaves," 92.
44 For the derivation of these totals see Eltis, Behrendt, and Richardson,"Transatlantic
Slave Trade: A New Census." They draw on Colin M. MacLachlan, "African Slave Trade and
Economic Development in Amazonia, I700-I800," in Robert B. Toplin, ed., Slavery and Race
Relations in Latin America (Westport, Conn., I974), 112-45, and Mettas, "La Traite Portugaise
en Haute-Guin6e, I758-I797,' J. African Hist., i6 (I975), 343-63.
45 For the Rio de Janeiro end of this activity see Klein, Middle Passage, 56, and Manolo
Florentino, Em Costas Negras: Uma Historia do Trafico Atldntico de Escravos Entre Africa e o Rio
de Janeiro (Sdo Paulo, I997), 78-84, 234. For the Mozambique records of this activity see
Edward A. Alpers, Ivory and Slaves in East-Central Africa (London, I975), I85-93.
46 Ant6nio Carreira, As Companhias Pombalinas, 2d ed. (Lisbon, I983), 247-49.
51 The overall estimate is actually for arrivals in the Americas and the Old World. For
these estimates see Curtin, Atlantic Slave Trade, and Lovejoy, "Volume of the Atlantic Slave
Trade," 473-50I, and "Impact of the Atlantic Slave Trade," 365-94, quotation on 373.
52 Thus, for example, differences between Inikori and me on the number of voyages in the
early i8th-century English slave trade should be resolved easily on a voyage-by-voyage basis.
of the Portuguese trade were spread around the South Atlantic basin, with
Pernambuco, Bahia, and Rio de Janeiro more important than Lisbon. In the
second half of each of the i82os, i830s, and i840s, more than one hundred
slave ships a year left Rio, and the scale of activity was not far off what it had
been in Liverpool fifty years earlier.
The size of the traffic of the two leading nations together meant that
three out of every four slaves carried to the Americas sailed in either a British
or a Portuguese vessel (including colonial-based vessels), and if France is
added, the ratio of the top three rises to nine out of ten. The half dozen other
nations in the trade, including the Netherlands, were minor carriers. The
major slave trading powers were, unsurprisingly, also the three nations domi-
nating the Atlantic commodity trades, though of the three, Portugal had much
the greater share of its total Atlantic trade accounted for by the slave trade and,
indeed, a much larger share of its total income generated by slave-related activ-
ities than the other two. Most minor traders, including the Dutch, came late
to the trade, managed to establish a position when the business was expand-
ing rapidly through to its peak in the second half of the eighteenth century,
and were the first to leave when the rate of expansion leveled off or when
absolute decline set in after the 1780s. The minor flags that appear in the
slave trade after i820 were in most cases flags of convenience, with the real
owners being mainly Spanish and Portuguese.
With the overall dimensions of the traffic established, the next step is to
distribute the estimated national totals of slaves by African region.53 Eight
regions of Africa are identified in the accompanying map (see Map II). An
important preliminary question is how often vessels obtained slaves at only
one point on the coast. The short answer is that trading was limited to one
region much more often than is commonly thought. When sending ships to
the African coast, merchants selected cargoes for specific markets because
Africans had regionally distinct preferences for merchandise. Ninety-five
percent of the cowries carried to the coast went to Bight of Benin ports.
Almost all the metal shipped from Europe to Africa went to Senegambia or
the Bight of Biafra, and manillas (wristlets) would sell only in the latter
region. Almost all New England rum sold on the Windward, Sierra Leone,
and Gold Coasts and all roll tobacco from Bahia went to the Slave Coast.
Textiles were welcomed in many places, although a pattern and texture that
would sell in one place often would sell nowhere else. Ships leaving on a
slave voyage would normally trade in only one region, though sometimes at
several locations in that region. Only 11.5 percent of vessels in the dataset
traded at two or more places, and 5.2 percent (8i2 voyages) of all records
with information on place of trade traded across regional boundaries. There
is undoubtedly some downward bias in these figures, in that vessels heading
53 The technical problems are straightforward in spreadsheet terms. Nevertheless, the pro-
cedures do involve considerable detail and some inferences about which means are appropriate.
It is possible for researchers to generate slightly different distributions from those presented
below on the basis of different (and equally plausible) assumptions.
for major West African regions east of the Cape Palmas typically acquired a
few slaves as they touched at points on the Windward Coast en route, with-
out reporting the fact later in the voyage. In addition, in some regions,
coastal lagoons or rivers made possible the movement of slaves along the coast
before embarkation. But even in the Bight of Benin, which had the most
extensive internal waterways, the movement of slaves from one region (as
opposed to port) to another was not cheap and cannot have been extensive.
On the African coast, trading for slaves was a highly specialized busi-
ness. Particular European captains would return to the same region many
times to trade with the same merchants. Particular European ports would
trade with the same African ports for many years and switch to new areas
reluctantly. Less often, particular European nations would dominate the
trade with entire African regions. Thus, all nine of Stephen Deane's slaving
voyages from London were to the River Gambia, and on the ninth he carried
not only slaves but also a female African-born merchant who emigrated as a
free person to Charleston and with whom he was clearly on good terms.54
Patrick Fairweather's fifteen voyages from Liverpool were all to Old Calabar
and the Cameroons, and he was one of many Liverpool captains who traded
for slaves only at those locations.55 Arend Bruyn sailed nine times from
Amsterdam to the Gold Coast between 1746 and 1763. Manoel Joaquim
d'Almeida captained eleven voyages from Bahia to the Bight of Benin, prob-
ably all to Lagos, between i814 and i826.56 Four out of five Rhode Island
vessels obtained their slaves from a short stretch of the Gold Coast. In the
Bight of Biafra, London vessels accounted for three out of four slaves carried
to the Americas between i650 and I700; Bristol, 70 percent of the slaves
taken between 1726 and I750; and Liverpool, 73 percent of those leaving in
the last quarter of the eighteenth century. In the 1780s, French vessels car-
ried 85 percent of the slaves from Congo River outlets. In the same decade,
all vessels leaving the southern outlets of West Central Africa (Luanda and
Benguela) were Portuguese, increasingly, from Rio de Janeiro. A slave vessel
rarely ventured to more than one African region to obtain its slaves.
The dataset contains large samples of African points of slave purchase
or, in the case of vessels that did not make it to the coast, the intended desti-
nations for each group of national traders. The African point of embarkation
is known for 62.6 percent of the English vessels, 76.1 percent of the French,
76.5 percent of the Portuguese, 24.8 percent of the Spanish, 45.7 percent of
the Dutch, 43.5 percent of United States voyages, and 52 percent of those
(mainly Danish) sailing from northern Europe. Overall, some indication of
African place of trade exists for nearly two out of three slave voyages or,
allowing for missing voyages, perhaps half of all transatlantic ventures that
54 Lillian Ashcraft-Eason, "She 'Voluntarily Hath Come to ... [the Georgia] Province': A
Gambian-Woman Slave Trader Among the Enslaved," in Lovejoy, ed., Constructions of Identity:
African Communities in the Shadow of Slavery (forthcoming).
55 See Behrendt, "The Diary of Antera Duke and the Eighteenth-Century Old Calabar
Slave Trade to the Americas," paper presented to the Michigan Seminar for Colonial Studies,
Oct. i6, i998.
56 Eltis et al., eds., Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database; Verger, Trade Relations, 404.
57 West Central Africa appears as an exception to this rule, but in reality it was very much
part of the general pattern. First, the pre-i65o intervals in Table II are for 50 years or more,
whereas those post-i65o are for 25 years only. Second, the present data are for transatlantic trad-
ing only. Slave vessels carried slaves to Old World ports in earlier years, and, though the num-
bers were far below what they were to become in the traffic to the Americas, a disproportionate
share of these departures were from West Central Africa.
a century. Except for the third quarter of the eighteenth century, these three
regions together were fortunately never able to match the volume of slaves
leaving any one of the other five regions and for most periods should be
considered minor suppliers of slaves to the Americas. Given the relative
proximity of Senegambia and the Windward Coast to the Americas-pas-
sage from Senegambia to the Caribbean was typically half as long as from
further south-this marginality is remarkable and suggests factors other than
geography at work.58
Both the sequence of regional participation and the pronounced and
widespread stepped pattern of expansion raise interesting questions about
the means and capacity of regions to supply slaves. It is likely that, apart
from West Central Africa, which sent ever larger numbers into the trade
after its initial expansion, the slave trade advanced in Africa mainly by push-
ing regions across a threshold of supply. A large surge of departures marked
the crossing of this threshold followed by a slightly lower plateau of depar-
tures. The intriguing issue is the cause and meaning of the step-up in slave
supplies. In each region, it occurred after many years when slave departures
averaged only a few hundred a year. One possible explanation is the time,
resources, and adjustment of social structures required to establish a supply
network or to break through to new sources in the interior or perhaps to
redirect an existing network for goods or slaves toward the Atlantic.
The particular events marking the step-up were different in each region.
The large increase in the number of slaves leaving the Bight of Biafra, for
example, coincides with the rise to influence of the Aro in the Niger Delta
and Cross River hinterlands.59 On the Gold Coast, gold was initially the
preferred commodity for both Africans and Europeans, and the massive
increase in slaving in this region coincides with the exhaustion of deposits
and the reorientation of trade routes from gold to slaves.60 In the Bight of
Benin, the key event appears to have been the reorganization of the trade
associated with the emergence of Whydah. From the perspective of long-run
trends in the number of slaves sent to the Americas, the rise of Whydah was
far more significant than the subsequent conquest of Whydah by the much
larger state of Dahomey. Incorporation into a larger polity was in this case
associated with a one-third drop in slave departures in the twenty-five years
after conquest. Only in West Central Africa did the numbers continue to
grow dramatically after the initial massive increase; unlike in other regions, a
continually shifting frontier of slaving apparently existed there.61 In West
Central Africa, the outcome of increasing demand and rising prices was an
expansion inland of sources of slaves-no doubt a function of the huge size
58 Of the 3 Upper Guinea regions, Sierra Leone sustained the higher departure levels for
longer and came closest to following the pattern of regions to the south. For a fuller discussion
of this pattern see Behrendt, Eltis, and Richardson, "The Costs of Coercion: African Agency in
the Atlantic World," Economic History Review (forthcoming).
59 G. Ugo Nwokeji, "The Biafran Frontier: Trade, Slaves and Aro Society" (Ph. D. diss.,
University of Toronto, i999), esp. 38-66.
60 For a discussion and review of the literature see Eltis, Rise of African Slavery, I50-5I.
61 Miller, Way ofDeath, I40-53, 234-4I.
carried from the Old South to the New in the United States, from northeast
to southeast Brazil, and on a much more restricted basis from the old British
Caribbean to newly acquired British territories.63 Some attempt is made to
adjust for the preabolition patterns below, but less is known about this early
phase of the intra-American trade.
The major adjustments to Table III the intra-American trade make nec-
essary are to mainland Spanish America-the major recipient of slaves trans-
ported in the intra-American traffic. Perhaps 85 percent of the slaves arrivin
in the Dutch Caribbean were quickly re-embarked for ports on the Spanish
Main. Jamaica was an even larger market or transit point for Spanish buyers,
whereas Barbados played a supplementary role in the seventeenth century,
and an estimate of shares passed on to the Spanish is more difficult for these
markets. Spanish demand for slaves from the mainland focused on Jamaica
after I700, falling off late in the eighteenth century, and except for
I73I-I735, is unlikely to have accounted for more than 30 percent of Afric
arriving in that island for any five-year period.64 Perhaps on average, IS per-
cent of pre-I700 Jamaican arrivals (rising to 20 percent from I700 to I808),
and 4 percent of pre-I7I5 arrivals in Barbados were shipped to Cartagena,
Vera Cruz, or Portobello and the Caracas coast. In addition there was an
intermittent trade from southeast Brazil to the Rio de la Plata down to the
i83os that introduced far fewer slaves than the direct traffic from Africa.65 In
Table III, mainland Spanish America accounts for 4.4 percent of the slave
trade. Adjustment for the intra-American trade might raise this share to 7 or
8 percent, mainly at the expense of the Dutch Caribbean and Jamaican
columns in the table. Mainland British North American colonies received
fewer intra-American arrivals and these in much smaller groups than did the
Spanish. In the Chesapeake, they accounted for 7 percent of all slaves enter-
ing and in South Carolina just 3.8 percent, though these figures run counter
to the perceptions of some historians.66 If as many as one-tenth of slave
63 The best estimates are in Robert W. Fogel and Engerman, Time on the Cross: The
Economics of American Negro Slavery, 2 vols. (Boston, I974), I:44-52; Robert W. Slenes, "The
Demography and Economics of Brazilian Slavery: I85o-I888" (Ph. D. diss., Stanford University
I975), I20-79, esp I27, I37; and B. W. Higman. Slave Populations of the British Caribbean
(Baltimore, I984), 79-88, 429-30. For the intra-African trade in southeast Nigeria in the after-
math of suppression of the Atlantic traffic, see Nwokeji, "Biafran Frontier," 200-II.
64 The best series for Jamaican sales of slaves out of that island, together with a discussion
of alternative sources, is Richard B. Sheridan, "Slave Demography in the British West Indies
and the Abolition of the Slave Trade," in Eltis and James Walvin, eds., The Abolition of the
Transatlantic Slave Trade: Origins and Effects in Europe, Africa, and the Americas (Madison,
I981), 274-75. Sheridan warns of smuggling, but his figure of I93,597 is I9.7% of the I70I-I808
estimate of arrivals in Jamaica in Table III of the present article.
65 Elena F. S. de Studer, La trata de Negros en Rio de la Plata durante el siglo XVIII (Buenos
Aires, I958), insert, quadro 5.
66 Lorena S. Walsh demonstrates that 93% of Chesapeake arrivals came directly from
Africa, in "The Chesapeake Slave Trade: Regional Patterns, African Origins, and Some
Implications," in this volume. The South Carolina ratio is calculated from Eltis et al., eds.,
Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, for arrivals from Africa and from Elizabeth Donnan, ed.,
Documents Illustrative of the History of the Slave Trade to America, 4 vols. (Washington, D. C.,
I930-I933), 4:296-58I, for arrivals from the Caribbean. The ratio is for 34 select years, I739-I807.
arrivals into what became the United States originated in the Caribbean,
then total slave arrivals into mainland North America would have been less
than 400,000. This is probably the lowest estimate of numbers of slaves
arriving in mainland North America ever made. Other small adjustments
required for the intra-American trade are harder to quantify. Except when
the English temporarily held the island toward the end of the Seven Years'
War, Guadeloupe received almost all its slaves via Martinique, though Table
III groups the islands in the same column. The French Windwards as a
whole were supplied from Dutch and English islands as well as from Africa,
and the trade probably averaged a few hundred per annum before I720. In
addition, both Barbados and St. Eustatius supplied part of the English
Leewards inflow down to I730, and Grenada became a significant entrep t
late in the century, but, again, these were not large trades. Finally, the move-
ment of English slaves into Demerara began before the British took over the
colony from the Dutch in I796.
None of these adjustments, including those for the Spanish and British
mainland colonies, substantially reconfigures the overall picture of arrivals
into the American regions shown in Table III. Given the dominance of the
Portuguese and British slave trades, it is hardly surprising that Brazil and
British America garnered most Africans. The former accounts for 4I percent
of the slaves arriving in the New World and the latter for 29 percent.67 After
making best guesses at the subsequent movement of slaves to other jurisdic-
tions, about seven out of every ten slaves carried across the Atlantic remained
in Brazil or the English-speaking Americas (though with the mainland claim-
ing a larger share than shown in Table III). The French Americas absorbed
half the number of slaves that the British Americas did, with St. Domingue
taking in fewer slaves than Jamaica, after adjusting for Spanish buyers, even
though the largest French island (assumed to be St. Domingue) far outpro-
duced its English counterpart. The French Americas actually took in fewer
slaves than any of the major European empires in the Americas. The explana-
tion is that St. Domingue, which accounted for nearly 8o percent of all
slaves coming to the French Americas, was a major plantation colony for a
relatively short time. Insignificant at the beginning of the eighteenth cen-
tury, in ruins at the end, and the colony of a country usually on the losing
end of wars that disrupted the traffic in slaves, it nevertheless took in more
slaves than Jamaica between I75o and I79I. The British Americas were more
extensive geographically and began to take large numbers of slaves earlier
than the French islands. The trade to the Spanish mainland began earlier
than to anywhere else and, through Cuba, grew explosively even while the
trade to the rest of the Americas was shutting down.
Assessments of the relative importance of regions in the Americas to the
slave trade have remained substantially unchanged since Curtin's census, and
Many arrivals from the Caribbean are identified in these tables by African coastal region, suggest-
ing that the slaves had not been in the Caribbean for very long and that the ratio may be biased
upward.
67 After breaking up the Guianas total among French, Dutch, and British.
68 Fogel, Withont Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American Slavery (New York,
I989), I8-2I.
The most exciting implications of the new dataset are not the volume
and distribution of the trade on either side of the Atlantic, but rather the
new light it casts on transatlantic connections. For the first time, estimates of
the African origins of slaves arriving in almost any part of the Americas, as
well as of the American destinations of slaves leaving the major regions of
Africa, are available from large samples of shipping data. These linkages
show that the distribution of Africans in the New World was no more ran-
dom than the distribution of Europeans. A couple of major admitting areas
received slaves from mainly one part of Africa for most of the trade. Four out
of five slaves taken to southeast Brazil came from West Central Africa, and
further north, Bahia drew a similar proportion from the Bight of Benin after
i68o, Adja-speaking peoples before I780, Yoruba thereafter.69 At the other
extreme Cuba received the greatest mix of African peoples at the same time.
No single part of Africa supplied more than 28 percent of arrivals to Cuba,
and the only major region not well represented was the Gold Coast. In addi-
tion, the region that supplied the greatest number of slaves-West Central
Africa-drew on a longer coastline and a larger hinterland by the nineteenth
century. Nor was there any regional segregation in Cuba. Four-fifths of
arrivals moved through Havana and other western ports and for the rest of
their lives worked in the sugar heartland of the island. Large numbers of Yao
from the southeast, Yoruba from West Africa, and Lunda from the Kasai
Valley in the Angolan interior-almost all of whom arrived in the first half
of the nineteenth century-worked in the plantation labor forces.
The pattern of transatlantic links for most of the Americas falls between
these two extremes. Typically, an American region drew on a mix of regions
yet tended to do so in sequence, a sequence moreover that in the British
islands played out slowly. Over time there was also a tendency to draw on a
more diverse set of provenance zones simultaneously. In sum, in the early
period of slavery in the Americas, ethnicity for persons of African descent
was rather more exclusive than it became in the last quarter of the eighteenth
century. Thus, in the Guianas, two-thirds of all arrivals before I750 came
from the adjacent Gold Coasts and Bight of Benin. A switch to West Central
Africa in the third quarter was followed by a Cuban-style provenance pattern
after I775. In the Rio de la Plata, nearly 90 percent of Africans arriving
before I780 came from the southern ports of West Central Africa, the mix
thereafter excluded only Upper Guinea. The Danish islands had an almost
exclusive link with the Gold Coast and the Bight of Benin until I775; then,
West Central Africa and the Bight of Biafra supplied most of their slaves.
Interestingly, Danish vessels carried amost all the slaves before I775, whereas
vessels belonging to other nations predominated in the period of more
diverse provenance. The same regions supplied Barbados between i670 and
I725, after which the Bight of Biafra replaced the Bight of Benin for fifty
years, and Angola replaced the Gold Coast after I775. In the French
Windwards, three out of five slaves arrived from a few ports in the Bight of
69 Manning, Slavery Colonialism and Economic Growth in Dahomey, 1640-1960 (New York,
I982), 29-32.
much greater after I750 than before, and with the switch in the dominant
African region, the ethnicity of the slave population by the end of the period
was clearly more mixed. Historians should not expect to find pronounced
evidence of Igbo, Akan, and Yao in St. Domingue, in strong contrast to
Jamaica. Because the island's links with the Bight of Benin predated the fall
of the Oyo empire (with its disastrous results for the Yoruba), Adja influence
should have been (and indeed was) much more in evidence than Yoruba. The
broader implications of these patterns for African-American life is beyond
the scope of this article, but one finding is that the ethnic environment of
early Jamaica and St. Domingue was much less diverse than it was to become
later. A second observation is that the patterns observed here do not accord
with planters' expressed preferences. There were clearly other factors driving
the slave trade.71
ous scholars who analyzed sections of it before it was complete. Time and
again, as the articles in this journal suggest, the data reveal patterns that are
not easy to explain if the focus is on Europe and the Americas or on Europe
and the Americas alone. Why, for example, was the area closest to Europe
and the Americas, with the best natural harbors and by far the shortest
Middle Passage (Upper Guinea), the area that sent fewest slaves to the
Americas? Whether the topic is European merchant decisions to launch a
voyage as well as when and where to send it, African resistance, regional
mortality rate differentials, age and sex profiles, the volume of the trade, or
links between African and American regions, understanding is enhanced if
Africans are treated as more than mere victims. Thus, if the current findings
have any general implications, they are, first, that a larger role for African
agency in interpretations of the shaping of the trade is essential, and, second,
that an Atlantic framework that allows for interaction among four continents
is required. These two points in no way contradict each other. In modern
terms, the slave trade was a massive and enduring crime against humanity:
slave ships never carried white slaves, and very few transatlantic slave voyages
were organized in Africa, but if these were to be the only conclusions carried
away from the new dataset, then it will have failed to advance our under-
standing of how the slave trade could have happened and what it means in
human history.
Senegambia Sierra Leone Windward Coast Gold Coast Bight of Benin Bight o
1519-1600
1601-1650 1.4 1.0 0.2 25.4 2.0
1651-1675 0.9 5.6 22.3 63.2 8.2
1676-1700 9.8 26.6 73.5 82.3 27.8 16.6
1701-1725 37.4 35.4 0.6 139.1 91.8 24.4 30.1
1726-1750 96.8 81.7 0.3 186.5 73.6 83.6 66.8
1751-1775 116.9 123.9 120 270.15 120.9 111.9 63.7
1776-1800 24.4 25.3 197.5 312.6 28.5 71.2 41.2
1801-1825 73.2 5.3 43.0 70.2 7.6 71.8 58.8
1826-1850 0.5 2.1 0.9 4.8 19.5
1851-1867 0.3 0.4
All Years 361.1 304.9 362.0 1,077.1 494.2 403.7 305.2
Share of Trade 3.8% 3.2% 3.8% 11.2% 5.1% 4.2% 3.2
PART Z
TABLE V
AFRICAN REGION OF DEPARTURE OF